On the first of the last month I reluctantly picked up the phone to check the early morning notification. I must have been still bleary-eyed when I saw the email announcing the current month’s Pulse edition. I did a few quick swipes through the Pulse website, still resolutely hoping to go back to sleep, when something made me blink my eyes open. It was an image familiar from a topic of intense discussion on Twitter the day before, which I did of course follow quite intently.
I remember going back and forth mentally for a few minutes before shooting off a text to the author of the article (Yes, that was like a good (not) morning message): Dr. Chetana Sachidanandan. I am happy to let you know reader, that she took my response to her article most sportively, and well, later on also invited me to write this commentary of sorts.
The Love Hypothesis, the cover of which caught my eye even in my sleepy state, is a book in the genre of fiction. This book was being shred apart by critics on Twitter for one reason: as much as it may sound romantic and supposedly easy-and-normal-to-happen-in-real-life, the book’s story was a mockery of something central to any workplace: professionalism. Before dwelling on what the Twitterati exclaimed was wrong with this storyline and my own views, I need to make certain points clear. Dr. Chetana’s article titled “Love in the Lab” reviewed two books in the August issue of the Pulse. The first, the Love Hypothesis, is a work of fiction that describes a relationship between a graduate student and a scientist. She concluded that most of the plot seems impractical (fictitious, yes). The second, another tale, Experimental heart, describes the juxtaposed lives of two postdoctoral researchers, who may or may not be in love?! The article urges the readers to pick up either of the books for light reading depending on the reader’s state of mind. Now I, the commentator of the article, have read neither of these books. And yet what I wanted to comment on was how we talk about the topic of “love in the lab”, especially on a forum like the online magazine of a research institute. I also hereby declare that I have no expertise or formal training on the topics I am commenting upon— this is merely the opining of someone who has been a part of the academic system and can see the perils of not stating the obvious.
Now back to the gist of what the Twitterati had to say about the Love Hypothesis. The problem with romanticizing a relationship between two people where a power dynamic exists is the blurred or rather broken line of professionalism. When the “hero” of the romance piece is a scientist, someone in an influential position, the story could be seen as encouraging readers to overlook the expected norms of workplace boundaries. One of the points that came up during my discussion with Dr.Chetana was the concept of consent— everyone who can work in a lab is an adult and so they should know what they are doing. I wish it was as simple as that.
In my eight year long stay at CSIR-IGIB, I can recollect only once having a session on the awareness of sexual harassment at the workplace at our institute. As it is, I have not come across any formal complaints of sexual harassments made at IGIB yet, so I will clarify that here and now. Academia in general, as with every other workspace, is known to be fraught with complaints of toxic situations, and many a times sexual exploitation. With the relative powerlessness of students in a scenario where recommendation letters make or break lives, instances of students yielding to different favors asked by supervisors or senior colleagues are not quite unheard of. So this is then the anchor point whence I reached out to Dr. Chetana— when workplace sexual harassment is a very serious issue, talking about love in the lab cannot happen without a necessary disclaimer on the rights and wrongs of such blurring lines.
As Dr. Chetana’s article starts off, love can happen anywhere. When we had debated on this topic briefly, she asked me, so what if a supervisor is in a consensual relationship with a student? To which my counter question was, how are the rest of the students in the same lab supposed to feel? Can we pretend that the person in a relationship with a supervisor will not have more access and in a lot of ways be favored than other students in the lab? Isn’t this how we make fertile grounds for sexual predators in academic settings where now students are vying for attention by immoral means? Conversely, a very young student fresh out of college, who has no understanding of where subordination starts and ends can fall easy prey to antics by a well-versed predator in a position of power. Adults they may be, but aren’t workplaces supposed to clearly state what falls within the ambit of professionalism so that anyone new entering the system are well aware of the dos and don’ts? And do we have systems in place when complicated situations do arise? As we discussed, Dr. Chetana herself mentioned that the Indian academic system has no written down rules for when the dissolving boundaries affect professional outcomes. And I for one think there is a need to raise awareness about such complex workplace relationships before we casually endorse throwing feelings into the mix of experimenting.
I am no hater of people who find love in the lab while working long hours together and meet their perfect partners in crime inside and outside the lab. I merely use this opportunity to point towards the intricacies of personal relationships within workplace settings acting as tipping points in the professional success or failure of those involved. I am also using this forum to plug a set of open-source action items I co-authored with many other academics for a better, kinder and humane academia, here.
As always, unless in the conditions of any grave miscarriage of justice, live and let live. And love, if you must, and let love.
Samatha Mathew is a molecular biologist studying blood vessels in Zebrafish.
PhD student. •Science communicator.
Proud of you again